Andrea March, the ex-fiance of the leader of the Hutaree militia group, spoke with Shepard Smith and said that David Brian Stone was a Ron Paul fanatic who was afraid that Obama would take away his guns. Where have we heard that one before? Oh, it reminds me of the Richard Poplawski saga. (rough transcript)

Marsh: When Obama took the presidency is when he lost it because he was a Ron Paul fanatic.

Smith: Ron Paul fanatic, what does that have to do with ?

Marsh: To tell you the truth I don't know. I never really understood why Ron Paul was so much different, but he thought he could get away with anything and he wanted more freedoms than what he had and he was trying to do it through the violence.

Smith: Do you know what was his particular concern was with the current government? Was he worried they would take his guns away?

Marsh: Well yes, he clearly believed in guns and having them and he didn't think . He didn't want to have a driver's licence, he didn't want to fill out any census papers

Smith: Oh.

Marsh: He wanted to own guns unregistered....

--

And he is said to have believed that anti-Christ was on the way and he wanted to do something about that?

Yes, he explained to us that through the bible the world was going to end in war and Christ wanted us to do this. Now he couldn't prove that to anyone, but the kids always listened to him.

Ron Paul's brand of anti-government rhetoric influenced Stone greatly which also fed into his 'End Timer' philosophy. And in this case, Obama was the anti-Christ.

These outbreaks of violent right-wing "cells" within our country will only increase, unfortunately. We can only hope that the feds and local law enforcement keep up the great work, or people will really get hurt.

Eugene Robinson and Michael Gerson take on the debate over whether Barack Obama's Presidency is succeeding or failing.

Both make interesting points, though I admit that it frustrates me to see a conservative writer quote Lawrence Lessig in support of his thesis that the Obama presidency is a failure.

I have problems with both of their arguments. Eugene Robinson cites Obama's swim in the Gulf as evidence that the oil spill was handled well and is now behind us. I disagree with him, and it weakens his other arguments to use it.

Michael Gerson wants to hang the fact that the tone in Washington hasn't changed on Obama, and supposes "all that is left is to attack Republicans." Of course, he ignores the larger truth, which is that the toxic tone in DC is a direct result of Republicans' obstruction and intentional obfuscation of the very real issues confronting this country. That's intellectually dishonest, and assumes Republicans shouldn't be attacked or that they don't deserve the criticism that comes their way. They deserve more criticism, not less.

As many here have noted in comments, Obama reached across the aisle early and often, to the dismay, anger and disappointment of liberals who wanted more forceful rhetoric and action with a near-majority near super-majority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House.

It's an interesting point-counterpoint nevertheless, and certainly mirrors the same debate I've seen here and elsewhere.

DOWNLOADS: (823)

PLAYS: (1347)

Embed

Glenn Beck had another one of those moments yesterday on his Fox News show, talking about the G20 Summit in Toronto:

BECK: Anyway, President Obama was there, and, um, he said something that kind of tripped my Marxism alarms. Here he is.

Mind you, Beck's "Marxism alarm" goes off all the time, with increasing shrillness and volume. It's kind of like the guy who sets his car alarm to such a sensitivity that it shrieks and squonks if you so much as walk within twenty feet of it.

Especially when you see what set it off this time:

Obama: A strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage. I think we all have the same interest -- and that is, the United States can compete with anybody -- as long as we've got an even playing field.

Somehow, to Beck, this sounded vaguely Marxist. But in fact, what Obama was saying was classic American capitalism. Because he was talking about the disadvantage at which currency restrictions force us to play:

"A strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage. So we also discussed the need for currencies that are market-driven," Obama said. "As I told President Hu yesterday, the United States welcomes China's decision to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces."

In fact, American presidents have advocated a "level playing field" within the world's markets for decades. Bush pushed it. So did Ronald Reagan.

What, does Beck think the USA should compete at a disadvantage? Or does this mean he thinks that free-market capitalism operates on an uneven playing field, and that capitalism and fair competition cannot coexist?

Because that, you know, is actually a classic Marxist position.

Fareed Zakaria gave the collective American media a much needed drubbing for their ridiculously trivial coverage of the catastrophic BP Gulf oil spill. Rather than looking for solutions or presenting a history of BP safety violations to show a long history of negligent behavior, or advocating for sensible regulations to protect the country, what did the media focus their energies on? Whether or not Obama appeared angry enough about the disaster.

This whole discussion is a terrible example of how the media can trivialize political discussion. The presidency is a serious job, the most serious job in the country. And here we are, asking the man to dress the part, to play-act the emotions. Give us satisfaction by just doing something, even if it’s all phony stuff, designed to give the impression of action.

Hard to argue with that.

In perhaps one of the largest turnarounds in modern political history, only six months after winning reelection, Bush has apparently squandered his mandate and now finds himself a lame duck, his powerful political capitol spent. Yes, dear readers, America is finally on to the man and it is doubtful that his presidency will survive the next two years.

So unlikely is his political survival that we here at the RECOVERING LIBERAL feel completely comfortable in beginning what amounts to as a countdown to IMPEACHMENT (Drum Roll Please!).

And what a lovely impeachment it will be, televised and tivo'd, and commented on by AL and Randi at AIR AMERICA while being dutifully dissected by our brothers and sisters in the BLOGGING COMMUNITY Including: BLONDESENSE, AMERICAblog, ,  DAILY KOS, and of course here in the red, white and blue pages of the LIB.

We are confident that in the next twenty-four months Dubya and the gang will be relegated to their rightful place in history as the war criminals, thieves and zealots that they most definitely are.

That they will be taken to task for lying about the WMD'S and for generally disregarding the will of the American people, who mostly believe that war should only be fought only when our nation is at jeopardy and not because war is good business.

We further believe that they will be held to answer for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives squandered as collateral damage in this War for Oil as well as for the senseless loss of our own troops, and for the ongoing pain and suffering of those soldiers, sailors and marines lucky enough to survive their tour of duty in Iraq.

Additionally, it is our sincere hope that they will be charged for their crimes against the environment and for the senseless destruction of the air that we breath, the water that we drink, and the food that we eat in the name of shameless profit.

Lastly, it is our fondest desire they be made to pay dearly for the climate of hate, which they have engendered, endorsed and fueled with their draconian approach to the maters of gay rights, stem cell research and evolution, as well as their support for those who preach hate in God's name.

And these are just some of the things which we would like to see them answer for in this life. God, I'm sure, has a few issues of his own to discuss with them.CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, and of course here in the red, white and blue pages of the LIB.

We are confident that in the next twenty-four months Dubya and the gang will be relegated to their rightful place in history as the war criminals, thieves and zealots that they most definitely are.

That they will be taken to task for lying about the WMD'S and for generally disregarding the will of the American people, who mostly believe that war should only be fought only when our nation is at jeopardy and not because war is good business.

We further believe that they will be held to answer for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives squandered as collateral damage in this War for Oil as well as for the senseless loss of our own troops, and for the ongoing pain and suffering of those soldiers, sailors and marines lucky enough to survive their tour of duty in Iraq.

Additionally, it is our sincere hope that they will be charged for their crimes against the environment and for the senseless destruction of the air that we breath, the water that we drink, and the food that we eat in the name of shameless profit.

Lastly, it is our fondest desire they be made to pay dearly for the climate of hate, which they have engendered, endorsed and fueled with their draconian approach to the maters of gay rights, stem cell research and evolution, as well as their support for those who preach hate in God's name.

And these are just some of the things which we would like to see them answer for in this life. God, I'm sure, has a few issues of his own to discuss with them.

President Obama sat down for an interview with Larry King last night to talk about the situation in the Gulf and being President. I didn't realize today was the 500th day of his presidency, but some astute producer at CNN evidently did.

Here's an excerpt for Maureen Dowd:

KING: Some -- I know you -- you appear so calm.

Are you angry at BP?

OBAMA: You know, I am furious at this entire situation, because this is an example of where somebody didn't think through the consequences of their actions. And it is imperiling not just a handful of people, this is -- this is imperiling an entire way of life and an entire region for, potentially, years. So...

KING: Has the company felt your anger?

OBAMA: Well, they have felt the anger. But what I haven't seen as much as I'd like is the kind of rapid response.

Now, they want to solve the problem, too, because this is cost -- costing them a lot of money. And the one thing that I think is important to underscore is that I would love to just spend a lot of my time venting and yelling at people. But that's not the job I was hired to do. My job is to solve this problem. And, ultimately, this isn't about me and how angry I am. Ultimately, this is about the people down in the Gulf who are being impacted and what am I doing to make sure that they're able to salvage their way of life?

And that's going to be the main focus that I've got in the weeks and months ahead.

Perspective is worth something.

On Israel, Gaza, and condemnation:

I think what's important right now is, is that we break out of the current impasse, use this tragedy as an opportunity so that we figure out how can we meet Israel's security concerns, but at the same time start opening up opportunity for Palestinians, work with all parties concerned -- the Palestinian Authority, the Israelis, the Egyptians and others -- and -- and I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process once we've worked through this tragedy -- and bring everybody together to figure out how can we get a two-state solution, where Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace and security.

On being President:

KING: A couple of other quick things, because I know we have a little bit of a time limit.

First, do you still like this job?

OBAMA: Well, this is the best job on earth. I mean it's a -- it's an extraordinary privilege to be able to wake up every day and know that you have the opportunity to serve the American people and -- and make their lives a little bit better or maybe it's the next generation's lives a little bit better. And...

I'm not sure there was a particularly good answer to that last question. What's he going to say, after all? Every morning he wonders what crisis is going to leap up and smack him upside the head today? Or does he wonder which nutcase will be out there with some new non-issue yammering about it on FOX News? As far as I'm concerned, I give him credit for getting up every morning and dealing with the constant drumbeat of a crisis here and a disaster there.

Corporations Have Higher Profits During Liberal Presidencies Liberal Truths

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003 the years where a Republican President was in office show that Corporations have lower Profits Before Tax than when a Democratic President was in office.

Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush:
In 1990 Corporate Profits Before Tax was $236,000,000,000.

Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton:
Started his Presidency in 1993 with Corporate Profits Before Tax increasing to $305,000,000,000.
Ended his Presidency in 2000 with Corporate Profits Before Tax further increasing to $436,000,000,000.

Republican President George Walker Bush:
Started his Presidency in 2001 with Corporate Profits Before Tax reducing to $327,000,000,000.
By the end of 2002 Corporate Profits Before Tax were further reduced to $316,000,000,000.

The highest rate of Corporate Profits Before Tax between 1990 and 2002 was in 1997 with $494,000,000,000 when William Jefferson Clinton was President.

Source: 15-business.pdf No. 737

DOWNLOADS: (1502)

PLAYS: (1083)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

I can see that Ben Nelson and the Conservadems/Baucus Dogs have a plan. They bitch and moan about the effect a public option would have on the poor, poor health-insurance industry, so if they do have to vote for a public option in the Senate that clearly benefits Americans and not his favorite donors, they will only do it under the provision that the states "opt in" rather than "opt out."

His hair has been saying this for a while now.

Nelson's hair doesn't explain why he favors the "opt in" version and Harwood doesn't bother to ask. And he can count on the media to not inform America what the differences are in an opt in or an opt out version of the PO so when we complain about it the Villagers will attack us. He was interviewed by John Hardwood, a Villager of the highest order on MSNBC.

Here's what Ben Nelson's hair said:

Harwood: You'd agree that unless a comprehensive health care bill would pass that it would cripple his presidency.

Nelson's hair: Well, I don't know that we should conclude that some form of health care reform won't pass. I believe that some form of health care will pass.

Harwood: What in your mind are stoppers, things that, knowing this place, things that either because you oppose them or other senators oppose them, simply can 't be in the final product to have it pass?

Nelson's hair: Well, it's very difficult to see how that CLASS Act that was in the HELP committe bill would make it [that's long term care provisions] I think also any kind of public option that would undermine or destabilize the private insurance that 200 million Americans have, I don't see that that would make it. But some version such as an opt-in, for the states with a state option, that could very well be in.

Digby alerted me to this clip and she astutely writes:

But I am still suspicious that there might be a play to make opt-in the reasonable alternative to opt-out. It just keeps cropping up in all kinds of places, often from White House reporters. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Harwood thinks that Nelson will stick with them on cloture and I haven't heard otherwise. (and if Harwood asked him he didn't say, the putz.) But he certainly keeps dangling himself out there as a vote for opt-in, so if this thing really comes down to the wire I could see it happening. Again, I don't think the village media have clue about just how different the two things are. It's just bumper sticker slogans to them.

The Hill reports that Sheldon Whitehouse also trumpeted the same thing.

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."

Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

I'm doing some digging around to see what's really happening and I'll have news soon. Reid is already having the "opt out" scored by the CBO, but my sources indicated that the Senate has not sent out the "opt in" to be scored. From what I'm hearing. The "opt in" would not pass the House conference.

Opposite sides of the editorial room in The NY Times

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

DAVID BROOKS

"W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches."

Maureen Dowd

Oy. This guy again.

You know, the one who told Virginia universities it was okay to discriminate against gay students? Or how he told Virginia residents that he thought he could challenge Obama's presidency based on his birth place? Or how he said he wasn't getting a Social Security number for his kid because it's being "used to track you"? That's the guy, freakishly right wing, birther numbskull Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

He's talking big again:

Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democrats' health care reform bill is approved, said a spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) this afternoon.

Cuccinelli has suggested previously he would likely file suit, but spokesman Brian Gottstein said that Virginia's lawsuit over government health care is now certain. Although Gottstein gave no details of the legal basis for this kind of lawsuit, he indicated that the process is "still being worked out."

In a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Cuccinelli warns Democrats of using the "deem and pass" approach, which would not permit a freestanding vote on the Senate-passed health care reform bill.

They're working out those pesky little details like a legal basis to sue. Of course. I hope they don't let precedent like the vilified "deem and pass" being used over 100 times keep them from wasting the People's tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits. I'm sure the irony of that doesn't even penetrate through his dense little birther skull.